Robert M. Ewing v. Patricia L. Ewing ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                     COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Senior Judge Baker *
    Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
    ROBERT MICHAEL EWING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION** BY
    v.         Record No. 1461-97-1           JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY
    AUGUST 11, 1998
    PATRICIA LYNN EWING
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
    Russell I. Townsend, Jr., Judge
    Robert M. Ewing, pro se.
    Patricia L. Ewing, pro se.
    The instant cause was before the trial court upon motion of
    Robert Michael Ewing (father) seeking a reduction of child
    support previously awarded to Patricia Lynn Ewing (mother).
    Father alleged changed circumstances arising from "significant
    reduction of [his] income . . . coupled with a substantial
    increase in [mother's] income . . . ."     Finding the requisite
    change in circumstances, the court reduced the earlier award but,
    nevertheless, aggrieved father by imputing income to him and
    otherwise calculating the modified support.     Father appeals,
    alleging numerous substantive and procedural errors.     Finding no
    error, we affirm the order.
    *
    Judge Baker participated in the hearing and decision of
    this case prior to the effective date of his retirement on July
    31, 1998 and thereafter by his designation as senior judge
    pursuant to Code § 17-116.01.
    **
    Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
    designated for publication.
    The parties are fully conversant with the record, and this
    memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary for
    disposition of the appeal.
    In accordance with well established principles, we review
    the evidence in the "light most favorable to the party prevailing
    below," mother in this instance.   Pommerenke v. Pommerenke, 
    7 Va. App. 241
    , 244, 
    372 S.E.2d 630
    , 631 (1988) (citation omitted).
    When the court hears the evidence ore tenus, "its finding is
    entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed unless plainly
    wrong or without evidence to support it."   
    Id.
       A presumption
    exists that the court properly considered the evidence and
    applied the law.   See Williams v. Williams, 
    14 Va. App. 217
    , 221,
    
    415 S.E.2d 252
    , 254 (1992).
    Father initially contends that the court erroneously
    departed from the statutory guidelines of Code § 20-108.2 by
    imputing income to him without ascertaining the "presumptively
    correct amount" and properly explaining the deviation.   Father's
    arguments, however, are belied by the record.
    A trial court addressing a material change in circumstances
    which requires modification of the original support order must
    first calculate the presumptive amount fixed by the statutory
    guidelines, deviating only after concluding, with written
    justification, that such award would be "unjust or inappropriate"
    in consideration of those factors specified in Code § 20-108.1.
    See Watkinson v. Henley, 
    13 Va. App. 151
    , 158, 
    409 S.E.2d 470
    ,
    - 2 -
    473-74 (1991); Code §§ 20-108.1, -108.2.    Here, the record
    discloses that the court expressly found the requisite changed
    circumstances and that the loss of father's income would reduce
    his guideline obligation to "zero." 1   However, in consideration
    of father's recent employment and earnings history, the court
    departed from the guidelines by imputing income to him, a finding
    sufficiently justified by the court in the disputed order which
    must be affirmed, if supported by the evidence.    See Code
    § 20-108.1(B)(3), (11), (12).
    It is well established that a parent may not voluntarily or
    neglectfully compromise income to the detriment of support
    obligations to children.   Brody v. Brody, 
    16 Va. App. 647
    , 651,
    
    432 S.E.2d 20
    , 22 (1993); see also Auman v. Auman, 
    21 Va. App. 275
    , 279, 
    464 S.E.2d 154
    , 156 (1995).    Thus, income may be
    imputed to a parent to promote the welfare of his or her children
    through a support order reasonable and appropriate to the
    circumstances.   See Code § 20-108.1(B)(3), (11), (12).   In
    addition to the several statutory factors relevant to imputation,
    we have also recognized "recent past earnings" as a relevant
    consideration.   Brody, 16 Va. App. at 651, 
    432 S.E.2d at 22
    ; see
    Code § 20-108.1(B)(3), (11), (12).
    Here, father is an articulate, educated professional, with
    1
    Father did not properly preserve an objection to the
    omission of this calculation from the order, and we decline to
    consider this issue on appeal. See Jacques v. Commonwealth, 
    12 Va. App. 591
    , 593, 
    405 S.E.2d 630
    , 631 (1991); Rule 5A:18.
    - 3 -
    marketable skills evidenced by recent, well compensated
    employment.   Although without work at the time of the hearing,
    father had been employed during the preceding year pursuant to a
    contract which had ended in accordance with its terms only
    several weeks previously.   He offered little evidence of a job
    search either in anticipation of or after termination.    Such
    evidence, when considered with the entire record, justified the
    imputation of $40,000 annual income to father, a sum less than
    his most recent earnings and reasonable under the circumstances.
    Father further complains that the trial court prevented him
    from presenting evidence pertinent to the imputation issue.
    However, we are unable to consider this question because father
    failed to proffer or avouch such evidence for the record, thereby
    precluding proper appellate review for error.   See Smith v.
    Hylton, 
    14 Va. App. 354
    , 357-58, 
    416 S.E.2d 712
    , 715 (1992).
    Father next argues that the court incorrectly determined his
    child support obligation by failing to deduct previously ordered
    spousal support from his gross income, by requiring him to share
    "ordinary" medical expenses in addition to fixed support and by
    adding expenses of "child care" not in evidence.   Our review of
    the record does not disclose an obligation of spousal support of
    father to mother or an imposition of medical expenses contrary to
    statute, and mother's uncontroverted testimony sufficiently
    established monthly child care expenses of $141.   Hence, we find
    no merit in father's contentions.
    - 4 -
    Lastly, father seeks an award of attorney's fees incidental
    to these proceedings.   Finding no merit in father's appeal or
    circumstances otherwise supporting his claim, we decline such
    relief.
    Accordingly, we affirm the disputed order.
    Affirmed.
    - 5 -